Comparing Obama and Reagan's Economic Records

[husker_99]

http://www.washingto....html#pagebreak

 

nevermind

[Mavric]

How has there been nearly as much added to the deficit in three years under Obama as there was under 8 years of Bush yet the entire amount under Bush gets put on him but only about 20% goes to Obama.

It's clearly explained in the link. This is the cost (or benefit) of every single piece of legislation signed by Obama and Bush. If it was signed by Bush, it goes to his column. If it was signed by Obama, it goes to his column.

 

No more and no less than that.

 

(Edit: I'll respond to the rest of your points later. Getting ready for a very busy week.)

 

Like I said, lies, damn lies and statistics. You can make the numbers tell whatever story you want. Whether or not they mean anything is a different matter.

 

My main point on Iraq and Afghanistan is that Obama has basically continued Bush's policies including adding more troops in Afghanistan but because it started under Bush it all goes to him - even though Obama at the very least increased the troop presence in Afghanistan. Technically by they way they set up their comparison that are showing it correctly. But by that logic we could relocate the entire armed forces to Iraq and it would count as Bush spending money because it was a continuation of a Bush policy.

 

By the way, where is the "cost" of the payroll tax "holiday" that has been in effect for over a year?

 

The United States has spent approx. $3.5 trillion each of the last three years. If that were to stay the same (unlikely), that would be $28,000,000,000,000 over eight years. By thei count, Obama would only be "responsible" for $983B of that amount. That would mean there is only "responsibility" for about 3.5% of total spending - and if that isn't the definition of a spending problem, I don't know what is.

[knapplc]

My main point on Iraq and Afghanistan is that Obama has basically continued Bush's policies including adding more troops in Afghanistan but because it started under Bush it all goes to him - even though Obama at the very least increased the troop presence in Afghanistan.

 

Do you believe that Obama would have invaded Afghanistan if Bush hadn't? That's the only way you can put it on Obama's plate. Once we're there we can't simply pull up stakes because the sitting president disagrees with the conflict.

 

I believe the Republicans call that "cut and run." Basically what I'm seeing is that if Obama continues the mission he's damned because it's now "his war." If he pulls our troops out he's guilty of "cut and run."

[carlfense]

How has there been nearly as much added to the deficit in three years under Obama as there was under 8 years of Bush yet the entire amount under Bush gets put on him but only about 20% goes to Obama.

It's clearly explained in the link. This is the cost (or benefit) of every single piece of legislation signed by Obama and Bush. If it was signed by Bush, it goes to his column. If it was signed by Obama, it goes to his column.

 

No more and no less than that.

 

(Edit: I'll respond to the rest of your points later. Getting ready for a very busy week.)

 

Like I said, lies, damn lies and statistics. You can make the numbers tell whatever story you want. Whether or not they mean anything is a different matter.

 

My main point on Iraq and Afghanistan is that Obama has basically continued Bush's policies including adding more troops in Afghanistan but because it started under Bush it all goes to him - even though Obama at the very least increased the troop presence in Afghanistan. Technically by they way they set up their comparison that are showing it correctly. But by that logic we could relocate the entire armed forces to Iraq and it would count as Bush spending money because it was a continuation of a Bush policy.

 

By the way, where is the "cost" of the payroll tax "holiday" that has been in effect for over a year?

 

The United States has spent approx. $3.5 trillion each of the last three years. If that were to stay the same (unlikely), that would be $28,000,000,000,000 over eight years. By thei count, Obama would only be "responsible" for $983B of that amount. That would mean there is only "responsibility" for about 3.5% of total spending - and if that isn't the definition of a spending problem, I don't know what is.

But they aren't making them tell a story and they aren't picking and choosing. They are including everything signed by each president. You can argue that we should blame Obama for things that Bush signed if you'd like . . . but then I think your "lies, damn lies, and statistics" quote would be even more applicable.

 

Your payroll tax holiday likely falls under the "two year extension" category or "other revenue."

 

Is someone arguing that there isn't a spending problem? You might be preaching to an empty room with that point.

[carlfense]

My main point on Iraq and Afghanistan is that Obama has basically continued Bush's policies including adding more troops in Afghanistan but because it started under Bush it all goes to him - even though Obama at the very least increased the troop presence in Afghanistan.

 

Do you believe that Obama would have invaded Afghanistan if Bush hadn't? That's the only way you can put it on Obama's plate. Once we're there we can't simply pull up stakes because the sitting president disagrees with the conflict.

 

I believe the Republicans call that "cut and run." Basically what I'm seeing is that if Obama continues the mission he's damned because it's now "his war." If he pulls our troops out he's guilty of "cut and run."

 

It's a continuation of the when things go well it's in spite of Obama and when things go poorly it's because of Obama mindset.

 

(The opposite is definitely true as well.)

[VectorVictor]

My main point on Iraq and Afghanistan is that Obama has basically continued Bush's policies including adding more troops in Afghanistan but because it started under Bush it all goes to him - even though Obama at the very least increased the troop presence in Afghanistan.

 

Do you believe that Obama would have invaded Afghanistan if Bush hadn't? That's the only way you can put it on Obama's plate. Once we're there we can't simply pull up stakes because the sitting president disagrees with the conflict.

 

I believe the Republicans call that "cut and run." Basically what I'm seeing is that if Obama continues the mission he's damned because it's now "his war." If he pulls our troops out he's guilty of "cut and run."

 

Isn't that what they call a 'Communist Choice'?

[Mavric]

My main point on Iraq and Afghanistan is that Obama has basically continued Bush's policies including adding more troops in Afghanistan but because it started under Bush it all goes to him - even though Obama at the very least increased the troop presence in Afghanistan.

 

Do you believe that Obama would have invaded Afghanistan if Bush hadn't? That's the only way you can put it on Obama's plate. Once we're there we can't simply pull up stakes because the sitting president disagrees with the conflict.

 

I believe the Republicans call that "cut and run." Basically what I'm seeing is that if Obama continues the mission he's damned because it's now "his war." If he pulls our troops out he's guilty of "cut and run."

I agree, he'd be in trouble with one side or the other no matter what decision was made. But I think that was also somewhat true of Bush as well. There was a lot of sentiment to "get back" at someone for what happened on 9/11. Did that lead to some hasty choices? Possibly. I'm not trying to say that Bush had to be talking into it but there are a lot of forces at work.

 

All presidents have to deal with what was left to them by previous action. Was Bush cutting taxes or just rolling back some of the tax increases from the 90s?